Environmental Holocaust

You have to be really careful with other people. Most often, when they are telling you about some event or another, they’re actually talking about themselves.

“See how important I am that I know this? And now you must acknowledge it, and so I have power over you,” burbles the underlying psychological dialogue. This is one of the reasons why humanity is dysfunctional once you get one step past the absolute basics of life: we are paranoid of each other’s motivations.

After all, language is a slippery master. If I murder someone because I want his wife, I have a number of minutes, hours or days before law enforcement arrives. During that time I can construct a logical statement explaining why I murdered him. Because this statement is made after the fact, it’s unclear whether it’s a reason for the action, or a justification — explanation to exonerate myself — made after the fact.

Very few people will say “I killed him to take his wife.” Most often, they invent pleasant lies based on an appeal to popularity. I killed him because he was a pedophile, a Nazi, or a derivatives-fund investment manager; or even more effectively, I killed him in self-defense, and you would have too, because no one deserves to have to stand helpless while some guy attacks. What would you do?

All this boils down to a reason we should be very skeptical of the motivations of others and thus of the veracity of their statements. Often, they’re looking for a reason to sound important, so they’re going to give us a moron-simple solution that correspondingly, doesn’t achieve what it says it does.

Energy-efficiency standards have been embraced by politicians of both parties as one of the easiest ways to combat global warming. Making appliances, cars, buildings and factories more efficient is called the “low-hanging fruit” of strategies to cut greenhouse emissions.

But a growing number of economists say that the environmental benefits of energy efficiency have been oversold. Paradoxically, there could even be more emissions as a result of some improvements in energy efficiency, these economists say.

The problem is known as the energy rebound effect. While there’s no doubt that fuel-efficient cars burn less gasoline per mile, the lower cost at the pump tends to encourage extra driving. There’s also an indirect rebound effect as drivers use the money they save on gasoline to buy other things that produce greenhouse emissions, like new electronic gadgets or vacation trips on fuel-burning planes.

Some of the biggest rebound effects occur when new economic activity results from energy-efficient technologies that reduce the cost of making products like steel or generating electricity. – NYT

The blockhead solutions to potential ecocide are united by a common thread: don’t change what we do, just change how we do it.

In particular, they like:

Recycling. Make sure we can easily melt the gadget down into its constituent parts and re-use those materials.

Efficiency. Make the gadget use less energy, water or blood of the unborn.

Sustainability. Manufacture the gadget from materials we can easily acquire again.

It’s hard to argue with recycling, for example, as a good idea. But is it a solution?

Using a metaphor: if I’m going bankrupt, it makes sense to start packing a box lunch to save $6 a day. But that won’t stave off the problem. It’s a good idea, but not a solution.

Efficiency is also a really good idea. By itself, it will not end the problem, but as a general design concept, it makes sense — so long as we don’t also weaken the power of our tools and gadgets in doing it.

Sustainability gets murky. While it makes sense to make cheap furniture out of bamboo because it’s easier to grow, we need to be careful — does it also require more intense processing to make it into furniture? I’m all for hemp paper and clothing, so long as we’re not talking using more energy, water or strange chemicals to make hemp comparable to regular paper or cloth.

After that, the sanity ends. The fines ding our biggest consumers so that our lowest consumers can have those resources instead, forgetting that there are more low-level consumers and so with this wealth transfer, we’re actually dooming the environment by bringing more people and their needs to bear on it.

We can see how the above are methods that attempt to ameliorate the problem. But do we have an actual solution?

Yes, but you don’t want to hear it: we need fewer people, less economic growth, and to reserve more wide-open spaces of all ecosystems for plants, animals and the replenishing process of natural homeostasis.

That notion is taboo because it places a limit on “freedom.” You are going to have to tell someone they cannot have that kid, or that second kid; you’re going to have to take away Billy Bob’s 454 truck, and maybe Joe Newyorker’s Mercedes-Benz. You may have to tell Wal-mart to stop selling its fun kids’ toy “Bucket of Flaming Tar.”

When you do that, the usual suspects — neurotic unimportant people who want to appear socially/morally important to compensate for their unexceptional lives — will trot out the old homilies: Who decides? Who watches the deciders? Who protects our rights, our equality? They will threaten revolution, even the morning after talking all night at the Free Trade coffee shop about how global warming is the crisis that defines our times.

In many ways, it’s a haze of prosperity: Gas drilling is going strong again, and as a result, so is the Cowboy State’s economy. Wyoming enjoys one of the nation’s lowest unemployment rates, 6.4 percent. And while many other states are running up monumental deficits, lawmakers are projecting a budget surplus of more than $1 billion over the coming year in this state of a half-million people.

Still, in the Upper Green River Basin, where at least one daycare center called off outdoor recess and state officials have urged the elderly to avoid strenuous outdoor activity, some wonder if they’ve made a bargain with the devil. Two days last week, ozone levels in the gas-rich basin rose above the highest levels recorded in the biggest U.S. cities last year.

“They’re trading off health for profit. It’s outrageous. We’re not a Third World country,” said Elaine Crumpley, a retired science teacher who lives just outside Pinedale. – NYT

The story repeats, worldwide. When the money shows up, people find their allegiance to the environment is less than they thought. Or more accurately, the people who raise objections to this new money get run out of town by those who simply want the money. We’ve already got government regulation and it’s not working, mainly because the financial incentive is too strong.

In this matter, the sad truth is that the only “real” environmentalists are found among those who are not making a big show of buying green products, implementing carbon caps, installing lo-flush toilets, and so on. They know these things are mere distractions.

Happy’s problem is that it has run out of water for its farms. Its population, dropping 10 per cent a year, is down to 595. The name, which brings a smile for miles around and plays in faded paint on the fronts of every shuttered business – Happy Grain Inc, Happy Game Room – has become irony tinged with bitterness. It goes back to the cowboy days of the 19th century. A cattle drive north through the Texas Panhandle to the rail heads beyond had been running out of water, steers dying on the hoof, when its cowboys stumbled on a watering hole. They named the spot Happy Draw, for the water. Now Happy is the harbinger of a potential Dust Bowl unseen in America since the Great Depression.

‘It was a booming town when I grew up,’ Judy Shipman, who manages the bank, says. ‘We had three restaurants, a grocery, a plumber, an electrician, a building contractor, a doctor. We had so much fun, growing up.’ Like all the townsfolk, she knows why the fun has gone. ‘It’s the decline in the water level,’ she says. ‘In the 1950s a lot of wells were drilled, and the water went down. Now you can’t farm the land.’ – The Telegraph

If you want the real story on humanity’s collision with environmental destruction it is that the story of a small Texas town without water repeats itself like wallpaper worldwide. Sometimes the resource is water, sometimes it’s fish, and sometimes it’s land itself. When too many humans crowd into a place, they drain it.

Since we gave up on all those bad old things like colonialism, aristocracy and culture, we have fewer controls than ever on our impulses. Do you want to start a fast food restaurant that stays open until 3 AM and sells ten pound beef burgers? Go ahead, it’s great. When it fails we’ll tear it up and throw it in a landfill.

Old-school feudal social orders told most people that they had little to expect. Unless you were lord of the manse, you probably got a small cottage, a cow and a few suits of clothes. In our modern world, by contrast, you can buy whatever you can get credit for. So people on peasant incomes buy half-million dollar homes, BMWs and then abandon it all when their ARMs run out. More landfill.

Scientists have developed a new satellite-imaging technique that allows them to have a better bird’s eye view of when carbon-rich peatlands were cleared and to what extent they have been replaced by palm oil trees.

The work, which depends on a blend of satellite images, marks the first attempt to systematically quantify carbon loss from peatland destruction across the region and directly tie it to oil-palm expansion.

Published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the study found that about 6 percent of carbon-rich peatlands in Peninsular Malaysia and the islands of Borneo and Sumatra were cleared to make way for oil-palm plantations by the early 2000s. In the process, about 3 percent of forest-dwelling birds across the region were lost and massive quantities of carbon were released from clearing peatlands, according to the authors’ estimates.

By last year, the study concluded, an area in Southeast Asia roughly the size of New Jersey had been felled of its forests. – Scientific American

The vanguard of environmental defense is not some alchemical egghead in a lab trying to make “green” lead, but someone who can find a political system that can stop the rapid expansion of the 20th century. With all the old rules gone, anyone can aspire to a resource-intense life — and everyone will, and want the same for their children.

We thought we would make a Utopia by relaxing the rules on individuals. End the religious infighting; accept everyone. End the class war; make them all equal. End the crime; make it easy for them to afford luxuries. But now the bill is due.

Our solutions aren’t solutions. They aren’t even particularly well thought-out. They’re justifications: we can’t talk about the real problem, and the real solutions, so here’s an entertaining idea that will make you feel like you’re really out there being an activist by buying a product:

It would be interesting to try to estimate the contribution of low-flush toilets and other restrictions on water flows to the disease environment. The theoretical effects are a matter of logic: low-flush toilets aren’t a free lunch. All else equal, weaker toilets result in dirtier, more disease-prone environs. The San Francisco case Jeff mentions suggests too that weaker toilets probably require harsher cleansers.

While I don’t know the precise history, I’m pretty sure that water-saving regulations were adopted at different rates in different places. This should provide a setting in which the researchers would be able to estimate the contribution of water-saving toilets, showers, and faucets to the disease environment. – Christian Science Monitor

And while we humans do what we do best, which is to recede into our minds and play with fanciful solutions that solve nothing, the problem marches on unattended. Every day passing puts us closer to having to pay the piper, and yet the ominous weight of that event makes it impossible to address. We feel like we’re on an out of control train racing toward a collision, with no option except suicide or cowering in the luggage rack.

The modern-day slavery expert explained to CNN that the current $90 rate for a human slave is actually at an historic low. Two hundred years ago, a slave cost about $40,000 in today’s money. The reason for this price slide: a massive boom in the world’s population, especially in developing countries, has increased the supply of “slaveable” people.

And this has basically turned a human being into a cheap commodity – Bales says like a Styrofoam cup that’s cheaply replaceable if damaged, “If they get sick, what’s the point of paying for medicine – it’s cheaper to let them die and acquire a new one than it is to help the ones you’ve got.

At this very moment, between 12 million and 30 million slaves are working around the world. That’s according to low and high estimates from sociologists and the International Labor Organization. – CNN

We embarked on this Utopian path to end slavery, and to end oppression. What we created instead was a worse form of oppression, in which kleptocrats rule most of the world and our species heads toward extinction, and a greater form of slavery. Giving every person unlimited rights created unlimited want. And from that we get brutal economic competition, brutal environmental exploitation, and finally, new and more intense forms of slavery.

Our solutions are not working and it is pointless to pursue them. There is only one solution: set aside more land for nature, and in order to do that, we must slow our growth and our population growth. As long as that remains taboo, talk about the environment is just more hot air to warm our climate.

Related

Related

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)

35 Comments

I agree that population growth is a problem for the environment, but the argument that there needs to be some new powerful elite to save the environment is trite.
The Washington establishment has justified greater and greater power over the idea that the environment needs to be saved. Yet, consider how much greater headway into environmental issues Washington could have made if they just exercised their fundamental powers of citizenship and territory.
The reason is simply flawed human nature.
Brett, don’t be too worried about Mother Nature. Today she is in the process of diminishing the white countries who think they should control the world, tomorrow she’ll vanquish the rest with war, starvation and disease.

The Washington establishment has justified greater and greater power over the idea that the environment needs to be saved. Yet, consider how much greater headway into environmental issues Washington could have made if they just exercised their fundamental powers of citizenship and territory.

This is the crux of the issue right here. Had we just avoided an unnecessary population boom through opening up immigration, the USA would be an environmental hero right now.

Part of why I write on this topic is to encourage others to break the hold that leftism has on this issue. Leftist environmentalism consists of wealthy white and North Asian nations giving up their economies so the rest of the world can prosper at their expense. It’s wealth redistribution, disguised as carbon caps, less-functional “green” products and so on.

Saying we need population decline is an inherently anti-White argument. It is always trotted out by the anti-Whites in the form of environmentalism, as it is in this article.

The truth is that any anti-population measures will be taken against WHITE nations and WHITE populations because these are the people of the First World, of high technology, and of high consumption. Even if it is not coerced, it will be the Aryan (“noble”) people who will voluntarily limit their own birthrates and populations to save the stupid darter snails. Anti-White environmentalists, who are merely communists that switched methods after the Soviet Union crashed, know this and exploit it mercilessly.

If you want population control, that’s fine with me. But be sure to explicitly limit it to the stupid, backward, and violent people (read: browns and blacks) that will NEVER produce anything of high technology or of revolutionary design. We all know who will solve the “environmental problems.” It will be the same people who produced 98% of the world’s excellence in human production: yes, White people. Sure, there will likely be a few high-caste Chinese, Japanese, or Koreans that pitch in, but we all know it will be Whites leading the way in technology and inventions, as they always have.

Put this environmentalist horse sh*t in the dumpster where it belongs. It is anti-White, based on some pitiful notion of scarcity, and will only lead to falling or coerced-to-zero White birthrates.

Brown and black people do scarcity, stagnation, and pollution. White people do abundance, invention, and efficiency. Isn’t this obvious to any pro-White who knows history? Don’t do the anti-White’s job for him.

I really don’t think you read this article very carefully, because I think that the author would agree to pretty much your whole outlook, except your knee-jerk reactionary anti-environmentalism, which is probably why you just skimmed it in the first place.

Yes, voluntary population control is dysgenic and anti-white, because only the most intelligent and responsible people follow such recommendations, and a very high proportion of them are white. But that is not an argument against population control per se. It is only an argument against voluntary population control, a laissez-faire approach to the matter. Environmentalism needs to be married to eugenics, and eugenic policies need to have the backing of the state. See my article here: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/02/why-environmentalists-should-have-large-families/

In white societies, we probably can settle for gentle methods of tinkering with incentives to encourage the best people to have large families and the worst to have few or no children.

But in the face of ecological catastrophes caused by proliferating black and brown populations, gentle measures are not enough. The best thing for Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, would be a Chinese-style one or zero child policy, combined with mandatory sterilizations of criminals, incentives for others to sterilize themselves, making medical aid and famine relief conditional on sterilization and other population control measures, etc.

Ultimately, the only solution is Guillaume Faye’s idea of a global caste system in which whites and other racially superior groups live at first world standards but the rest of the population (much reduced from present numbers) is kept in an ecologically sustainable, low-tech, low-standard of living.

Of course people are too morally confused and weak to adopt such a solution, so nature will have to force it upon us when human overpopulation and ecological damage force a massive global die off. Unfortunately, such a process will be largely indiscriminate, and many of nature’s finest creatures will probably become extinct in the process.

Well put, Greg. The real problem is population growth in the developing nations, which have outgrown their carrying capacity. Since this leads to deplorable living conditions and the inability to grow food (to be fair, this is also a by-product of Western capitalists urging local famers to grow useless “cash crops” for export which exacerbates the problem) needed to feed the population. Naturally, with the abstract concepts of Cosmopolitanism, international “human rights” and the carrot on the stick in the form of “equal economic opportunity” in White nations, the excess (and most often least productive) population leaves the Third World in droves to seek such opportunity, while at the same time refusing to alter their irresponsible reproductive behavior which precipitated their miserable condition in the first place. Of course, almost all of these people become little more than wage slaves, consumers and potential voting blocks (although their vote is in my view merely a means to placate and offer them the illusion of freedom) which serve to displace Whites and facilitate the continued dominance of White and Jewish oligarchs who care nothing for us. This is perhaps the most important factor behind massive immigration.

Since the wealthy and guilt-laden Western nations are pressured into offering endless food and aid into these poor, dysfunctional nations, and ultimately allow their surplus populations to flood our own out of a false sense of “justice” (i.e Singer, Rawls, Kymlicka), the Third World has absolutely no incentive to change their lifestyle. Thus, the problem continues. Garrett Hardin called this, simply, the “ratchet effect”.

Clearly, Whites who possess the ability to think abstractly about environmental issues and population are the first to limit their own fertility. Sadly, they have also become forced to support the unsustainable fertility of non-Whites in all Western nations, since those from the Third World continue to enter our various nations, outbreed us and drain our limited resources, thus robbing future generations of our Folk. Additionally, since most Whites can not stand to live in environmentally depleted, unaesthetic areas (i.e. the modern ruins of the major urban centers), they leave the cities if possible. Of course, the non-White parasites follow. The same situation occurs. Repeat… This leads to urban sprawl and the inevitable destruction of our pristine environments, depletion of clean water supplies (which in time WILL cause violent conflict here) and arable land (which is typically turned over to corporate mega-farms to grow genetically engineered garbage to feed the growing population, or turned into cheap housing to keep up with the population explosion). In the end, this is undesirable and causes the kind of White people who should be having children to delay or avoid it altogether. Mostly the latter.

Environmentalism needs to be married to eugenics, and eugenic policies need to have the backing of the state.

This is a more valid point than most people understand at first. Environmentalism is eventually going to re-discover population control. When it does, the effort will focus on two things:

(1) Convincing smart, college-educated people that they should not have children.

(2) If we do limit population, making sure that we do it “fairly,” which will in the modern mindset involve some kind of lottery or payment for sterility.

Both of these are completely destructive. When we bottleneck population, as surely we will be forced to, what we want to do is keep our best people and lose those that are heading nowhere. That is the only sane response to population limitation. Anything else convinces the mentally alert people to die off, replacing them with the thoughtless hordes who are the true environmental catastrophe.

People may complain about urban white people driving SUVs, but wait until the IQ is a standard deviation lower, and you’ll see the same SUVs but more of them, and in the hands of people who think nothing of abandoning them and then setting them on fire, buying lots of plastic junk at Wal-mart and then throwing it out, and other environmentally costly practices.

I always find it ironic that many so-called conservatives and White nationalists seem to have such a strong aversion to environmentalism, especially deep ecology. Some even call it “horse sh$t”. What use is it to promote our racial interests if we are simply destined to inherit a desolate, depleted world? Environment is everything if you intend to sustain human life and culture, which in the end will always be contingent on clean water, arable land and balanced ecosystems. Anyone who is interested in the destiny of our folk MUST be concerned with suitable living space.

Population is always an issue. Just because you are White does not mean that you should necessarily have more children than you can provide for (the difference between high and low investment parenting). This is absurd. Additionally, carrying capacity must always be taken into account. Quite obviously, the problem in Western nations is differential fertility coupled with gross materialism, which eventually puts Whites at a demographic disadvantage. This can be remedied by controlling non-White immigration (eventually) and reevaluating our lifestyle choices. As an example, one reason that I am vegetarian is precisely because eating meat purchased from factory farms directly contributes to environmental destruction and the displacement of White family farmers and their communities. Most ignore this fact and eat it anyway.

We must also live simply by choice, but this is hard for many of us in the false materialistic “culture” of the West. Most think they have the divine “right” to endlessly consume regardless of the long term consequences, or the fact that this perpetuates literal slave labor around the world (and promotes globalism and endless human migration in search of “the good life”).

This is a huge part of the bigger issue: modernity as a social order is not doing anyone any favors.

How do we place economic value on race? On pride? On honour, and chastity, and faith in those intangible things that make a person complete?

As long as most of our people are in the dreamland of small desires served by a vast materialist civilization, we are lost. As long as the only dialogues we can have are about materialism and equality (an offshoot of materialism), we are shouting in the darkness.

“Lord of the Rings” and “300” did more for our cause than most books do. They awakened a desire for more than the material. Part of that awakening is consciousness of nature and our place in it, and with that, comes inevitable racial awareness.

Appeals to population control and environmental preservation have been pitched to Whites over and over again with disastrous effects. I am old enough to remember apocalyptic prophesies of our environment turned to wasteland by masses of humans in the seventies. How did “responsible” Whites respond? By not having children or limiting themselves to 2! Population growth in the past century and so far in this century has been entirely in non-White populations. Europe’s whites are declining in number, stable or declining in America, and this writer is concerned about our impact on the environment?

Is he kidding?

We, whites, are all concerned about our environment. It is evident in the efforts we put in landscaping our yards and beautifying our neighborhoods with trees and gardens, but this author seems to be implying that our numbers alone are the problem. When did this line of argumentation become acceptable on a site that aims promoting a “revaluation of values”–a metapolitical attack on conventional political and social thinking?

Is he the same writer that said in another article that smacked of “responsible conservatism” that we should not be explicit about whom our enemies are? Avoid being specific about who is seeking our demise and replacement?

I think you are seriously misunderstanding this article. Stevens is not arguing that whites need to limit our populations, but that we need to put a halt to the idea that every Third Worlder has the right to a First World lifestyle. He takes environmentalists to task for focusing on silly non-solutions like low-flush toilets while completely refusing to deal with the driving force of environmental devastation: exploding non-white populations and the expectation that these people can attain First World standards of living.

I have my doubts about Brett Stevens. Like Lawrence Auster, a racialist Jew who ‘converted’ to evanglical Christianity, Stevens also acts almost as if he just another gatekeeper for Jewish interests on the racial right. I have no idea whether or not Stevens is a Jew, but I don’t think that matters. What matters to me is that Stevens never dares offend Jewish sensibilities.

Here is a typical piece by Brett Stevens that will not appear on Counter-currents:

These people claim to reject equality and democracy. They allegedly believe in ‘human biodiversity” and and promote eugenics, but they explicitly refuse to assert the interests of whites. Ironically they are quite explicit about claiming that whites and Asians are smarter than blacks.

Their favorite domains are ‘amerika.org’ and ‘anus.com’. Here is a brief purview of the kind of stuff that appears on their sites:

Their content often appears on the ‘New Right’ section of reddit. I used to submit content from James Edwards blog, counter-currents, and TheOccidentalObserver on their ‘New Right’ section of reddit and if the number of upvotes my submissions received is any indication, this material was quite popular with their ‘New Right’ readers. But their moderators, one of whom is Doug Vance and another of whom I believe is Brett Stevens haves asked that I refrain from posting any antisemitic or racist ‘white power’ material from JamesEdwards or The Occidental Observer.

The real irony is that if you took their rhetoric about opposing equality, democracy, and diversity at face value, it follows pretty logically that one would support content from people like Greg Johnson, Kevin MacDonald, & James Edwards. But they dare not even acknowledge the interests of whites, nor speak a critical word about Jews. They purport to be exponents of the European “New Right” and are big followers of Evola, Pettit, Linkola, de Benoist, Kurtagic, and even Tom Sunic.

To me the articles on ANUS & Amerika seem like a meaningless and vapid distraction. They want to appear to be profound, deeply philosophical, and reactionary. But their insights are trivial and their political philosophy is quite opaque. If my experience is any indication, their readers enjoy reading someone who is plain-spoken and direct like James Edwards or William Pierce, but their editors would never countenance such an explicit assertion of white interests.

I don’t know Brett Stevens personally, but I like a lot of his work. Yes, I was disappointed with the piece on the Jewish Question that you cited, so I did not repost it. But Stevens has never objected to having his other works reprinted here.

But, there is something about their evasiveness and often gratuitous abstraction on the issue of racial advocacy that seems too clever by a half. If they come off as being somewhat mealy-mouthed and evasive about their own racial consciousness, how can one expect their readers to be any different?

But, there is something about their evasiveness and often gratuitous abstraction on the issue of racial advocacy that seems too clever by a half. If they come off as being somewhat mealy-mouthed and evasive about their own racial consciousness, how can one expect their readers to be any different?

Charles, thanks for the praise of my writing. We are not equivocal on the issue of race: we are nationalists.

The difference is that we believe nationalism alone is not a solution, especially not now; we need a cultural, philosophical and ethnic unity as we rebuild a shattered civilization.

Race is a touchstone issue that can swallow all it touches. We need to fit it into a complete worldview, not make it a substitute for that worldview, if we want to reach out to the educated middle classes in Europe and USA.

That at least is my experience having wandered, conversed and studied widely.

Gentlemen, if you actually read most of the articles on anus.com or amerika.org, you’ll come to realize that the overall message of their articles is pro-European, pro-tradition, pro-nationalism, pro-conservatism, and anti-immigration. All of these combined leads to a pro-European message. Don’t just pick out a handful of articles and not read the rest.

Stevens and ANUS are right, though. We need to stop blaming others for our problems and start looking in the mirror. Victimhood is backwards thinking and unhealthy.

The “We have nobody to blame but ourselves” school is false and pernicious.

(1) It is false, because “we” did not do this to ourselves. “They” did it to us. The white race is on the path to extinction because traitorous elites and hostile Jews have set us on the path to extinction. We are only responsible for what happens to us if we authorize it, or if we do not fight back, but to fight back we need to know who the enemy is. Saying that “we did it to ourselves” is just blaming the victim and allowing the enemy to hide.

(2) It is pernicious, because it appeals to fuzzy “high-mindedness” which is more often than not a cover for cowardice, sometimes a cover for collaboration.

(3) It is pernicious, because it induces a false sense of guilt, which is merely a form of self-consciousness, and a debilitating one at that. Guilt makes us less likely to act forthrightly in our interests.

(4) If one is a victim, it is surely unhealthy to dwell on that. The healthy thing to do is get angry and strike back at one’s enemies. The “We have nobody to blame but ourselves” meme just channels righteous indignation into the politically ineffectual channel of self-reproach and hides the real enemy from our wrath.

The “We have nobody to blame but ourselves” school is false and pernicious.

It’s more guilt and thus is more destruction. However, I see nothing wrong with placing the blame where I see it as lying: on liberalism.

Liberalism destroys any nation it touches. It is destroying Israel as surely as it destroyed the Aztecs and Maya, who were so fully in decline that their slaves could partner with a few hundred Spaniards and overthrow thousands of warriors. These Spaniards were using harquebusses, not repeater rifles. The guns did not offer that much of an advantage. The huge number of liberalized underclasses, who were ethnically distinct enough from their upper castes to be visually recognized as separate, made the difference.

White liberalism should not be seen as an indictment of whites. It should be blamed for what it is, which is a bad idea, a bad philosophy and most importantly, a bad mental state and intellectual fashion.

If we want to deliver our people from this menace, we need to make clear why liberalism is a failure, and why it’s destructive, and what a better alternative is.

As long as our people are bewitched and befuddled by these insane ideas, they’re going to keep handing their cash over to insane and corrupt manipulators. Whether those manipulators are Jewish or Guatemalan is not the point. The point is that we have inculcated our people with lies by allowing liberalism to exist and to indoctrinate them from a young age.

If we beat back liberalism, we achieve nationalism, and we become masters of ourselves again. All other problems fall in the face of that, not directly but secondarily.

Because of that, my focus is and always will be beating back the philosophical underpinnings of liberalism (a social-emotional filter of reality manifested in pathological demands for equality) and replacing it with some form of idealistic, or non-materialistic and pattern-oriented, thinking.

Once upon a time, white liberalism was the problem: liberalism in the modern sentimental altruistic sense and in the selfish capitalist sense. Without those factors, we never would have burdened ourselves with negroes, or slaughtered one another to free them, or destroyed our society pretending they are our equals. Without those factors, we never would have let millions of Jews enter our society and take it over.

But today, the problem is no longer liberalism, because we are not ruled by liberals, we are ruled by Jews. And if we defeated all liberals, we would still be ruled by Jews who would push the same destructive policies under the guise of conservatism. That’s what neo-conservatism is: a conservatism that conserves nothing but Jewish power and Jewish interests.

You may not pick the Jews as your enemy, but if you are sincere in fighting against their interests, they will pick you just the same. John Tyndall talks about how he tried to be an English nationalist without focusing on the Jewish question, but wherever he looked, he found that Jews were the sine qua non of opposition to English nationalism. The same is true in the US and throughout the white world.

“Gentlemen, if you actually read most of the articles on anus.com or amerika.org, you’ll come to realize that the overall message of their articles is pro-European, pro-tradition, pro-nationalism, pro-conservatism, and anti-immigration. All of these combined leads to a pro-European message.”

And obviously also a pro-Jewish message.

“We need to stop blaming others for our problems and start looking in the mirror. Victimhood is backwards thinking and unhealthy.”

It is not a matter of blaming anyone (that is a straw man created by irrational philo-Semites), it is a matter of identifying a biological and existential enemy of our race. Politics are about power and making a distinction between your enemies (that is, those who have a claim to power that is contrary to your existential interests) and your friends, not moralism and blaming people. As it happens, Jews are very influential and definitely have biological interests that are contrary to ours.

If anything, we are to “blame” for not identifying our enemy and fighting him. That is our weakness. In a boxing match, if you don’t keep an eye on your opponent, you lose the fight. That simple. If you lose the fight anyway, you have yourself to “blame” (for not keeping your eye on the enemy enough).

How can actually fighting be equivalent to “victimhood”? Is not fighting the enemy thus the equvalent of heroism?

Amerika’s and the European New Right’s attempt to be sophisticated by being stupid and not fighting the enemy is just pathetic and a sign of weakness. Either they don’t know what they are talking about or they are cowards, being the lap dogs of our existential enemy.

Nicely put, but I disagree about blame and victimization. Philo-Semites of course love to claim that anti-Semites blame their own failures on Jews. That is just an evasion of responsibility and self-knowledge. The truth is, however, that Jews have done terrible things to our people, and they are the main impediments standing in the way of fixing our most serious problems. They have victimized us, they are victimizing us, and we need to identify them as the enemy, place the blame where it belongs, and fight against them.

Well, it is probably more an issue of attitude than of facts. As far as facts go, MacDonald et al. have shown that Jews have caused or helped cause a lot of the bad things going on in the West, and thus we are in some objective sense their victims. What I am not sure of, though, is how constructive it is for us to see ourselves as victims. Maybe it would be more invigorating for us to see things as a fight and have a “may the best man win”-attitude. That is the more manly approach and more in line with our indo-european heritage as far as religion and culture goes. On the other hand the Jews have always seen themselves as victims and they are winning at the moment, so maybe we should learn a thing or two from them and change our culture. Maybe it is just aesthetics of it that keep me from accepting that point of view.

Whatever the case may be, we should do what it takes to win. Nothing more and nothing less.

Although I agree that the environment needs protection and that our world is overpopulated (especially by the 92% of folks who are non-White), I am also getting VERY tired to hear this greenhouse gas nonsense being repeated. For those who can read and analyze enough to get an associate’s degree, the following is clear:

This planet has had a measureable roller-coaster of temperature changes for the past few hundreds of thousands of years, and in all probability much longer. In later time, suffice it to say that they grew grapes in Kent, England in the 13th century, while the 18th century was known as “the little Ice Age” in northern Europe, with the Baltic Sea frozen most of the year.

Furthermore, when one studies the famous graph in Al Gore’s movie “An inconvenient truth”, the causality between CO2 and temperature rises is clearly reversed: the temperatures rise first, followed (50-200 years later), by increased CO2.

I’m all for fuel effeciency and alternative energy sources, but whenever I hear the greenhouse BS, I get very tired…

The problem is not 3rd world or developing nations trying to live in a 1st world or developed nation style. I come from such a developing nation and although our cities are polluted and over-crowded the life in our villages has remained almost unchanged for hundreds of years, and in some areas, thousands.

The United States continues to be the biggest pollutant and destroyer of natural resource and *thanks* to corporate globalization they export the same.

What needs to be done is for EVERYONE to limit their consumption of just about everything in order to live more sustainably and for people to have only the amount of children that they can easily afford without having to rely on government handouts or street begging as the case may be.

1. We can make all of our own grooming and “beauty” products at home. No need to go out and buy them at Walmart.

2. Most Americans have more than one closet full of clothes that if kept properly can last them for up to a decade or more – no need to go out and buy more clothes.

3. Buy produce from your local farmers.

4. Start a bartering group amongst your friends and family where you trade one resource for another or one service for another.

So much can be done to live more simply, sustainably and not “give back” to the polluting corporate globalized structure.

I come from such a developing nation and although our cities are polluted and over-crowded the life in our villages has remained almost unchanged for hundreds of years, and in some areas, thousands.

That will probably change when the corrupting influence of modernity hits. Modernity beckons with Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, BMW, etc. and lures people away from traditional lifestyles to the convenient and urban.

The point of my article was not to slander the third world, but to say that the first world limiting itself will not help this problem. As the parts of the world that did not industrialize with the first world rise to power, it is inevitable that the same pattern we saw in the first world will replicate itself, which is people leaving behind traditional ways for modern lifestyles, and in the process becoming destructive consumers. The path is not buying green light bulbs; it’s population limitation, and as Greg Johnson says elsewhere in this thread, a eugenic population limitation.

Were I leader of a third-world nation, I’d implement eugenic policies to discourage anyone under 110 IQ points from breeding. Within a generation or two, the character of the nation would vastly improve with the intelligence of its people. In addition, with less pressure on the food supply, the lives of those in the nation would vastly improve.

That is a microcosm of the world situation: with too many people, we destroy our environment and pressure our food supply, where if we acted like natural selection and lifted up the best for survival, we’d eliminate those pressures and improve ourselves.

Well, when Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister she sent out trucks of “physicians” that would forcibly grab men off the streets and sterilize them. You can imagine how well that went over with the populace.

We have propaganda to promote a 2 child family and educated, upwardly mobile people have only as many kids as they can easily afford. The problem is with the uneducated, of which we have many. The women amongst them however are on board with prophalactic use. Its their husbands that are hard to convince for some reason.

I am very grateful to all who have made an effort to understand what was said in the article, and that we are able to open a dialogue on these issues. The right suffers from vagueness.

First, on environmentalism:

Stevens is not arguing that whites need to limit our populations, but that we need to put a halt to the idea that every Third Worlder has the right to a First World lifestyle.

Exactly. And even more: European-descended peoples are awash in guilt and the accusation that we should be “doing more” for our environment, when the real solution is far removed from buying green products and limiting our population. We have already done that. Hybrid cars and green toilets will not fix the problem. They are a distraction.

Charles asks:

But, there is something about their evasiveness and often gratuitous abstraction on the issue of racial advocacy that seems too clever by a half. If they come off as being somewhat mealy-mouthed and evasive about their own racial consciousness, how can one expect their readers to be any different?

Since this is basically what everyone is asking here, I’ll address it:

(1) Racial consciousness is important, in context. The real question, as Traditionalists will tell you, is unity in a society. I call that unity consensus, using the older meaning of that term, to imply an accord between values, customs, culture, heritage, language and philosophy. Race is part of that, but, race is not the whole. We need to emphasize this “organic society,” and if we emphasize race alone too much, we lose sight of the big picture

(2) Blame. We must be careful where we place blame. I don’t name the Jew because whether or not Jewish people are the spawn of Satan, the fundamental problem is not Jews but white liberalism. White liberals kick the door open to victimization and corrupt our society from within. Whether Jews engineered this, or did this to them, is irrelevant until we fix the problem which is white liberalism arising from confused white societies.

(3) Admiration. I admire the racial self-interest and unity expressed by other ethnic groups; further, I admire the Jewish people and their ability to promote their own culture, values and philosophy — and heritage — in a “diversity” of situations. We should emulate them. In the same way, we should emulate constructive racial separatists and nationalists from other groups, whether that’s Theodor Herzl or Malcolm X in the early years.

(4) Irrelevance. If we become focused on the Other, we lose sight of what is important: getting our people unified around a culture, values system, customs, heritage and other traditional elements of a society. If we do that, nationalism is achieved in the process. I want to focus on white people and their understanding of race and ability to talk about it. Again, the cause of our problem is white liberalism; you don’t beat a Hydra by cutting off heads that regrow instantly. You go for the heart, which is white liberalism.

(5) Dialogue. For the majority of the middle class European-descended people out there, race is a polarizing issue when blame is introduced, and that ends the dialogue. These are the people we are supposed to be representing and defending, and anything that isolates me from being able to communicate with them is a problem.

My goal is not to divide the Right, which is why you see no targets being chosen specifically. I do target ineffective behaviors. All that matters is that we achieve our goals. Ideological purity without practical success killed the Soviets. I am not here to wage jihad against those who disagree with me, but I am going to pursue arguments of the style you see above. I will attack the cause, and the part of our civilization we need to remove in order to achieve our goals. If you each examine your own motivations, you will see that as conservatives you are more interested in ends (goals) than means (methods), and so you are at least in spirit in accord with me on this issue.

(2) Blame. We must be careful where we place blame. I don’t name the Jew because whether or not Jewish people are the spawn of Satan, the fundamental problem is not Jews but white liberalism.

Wrong. The problem is that Jews are in control. Whites need a society where the media, the financial system, the universities, etc. are not controlled by Jews. Get Jews out of power and keep them out, and the other problems will largely self-correct.

The Washington establishment has justified greater and greater power over the idea that the environment needs to be saved. Yet, consider how much greater headway into environmental issues Washington could have made if they just exercised their fundamental powers of citizenship and territory.

This is the tragedy of the issue. The real question here is whether humanity is able to find a replacement for natural selection. We don’t need more people; we need better people. But that offends others, who then start trotting out the most downtrodden and sad they can to show us how evil we’d be if we did such things. But if we really love our species, we want only the best in it.

Brett, I like what you said about liberalism. I still think it is a suicidal ideology, or rather the (secular) religion that has infected Western civilization with its most lethal virus. But with all due respect, you are talking nonsense about the Spanish Conquest of Mesoamerica. I’ve written a lot about it in my blog, the most politically incorrect view on pre-Columbian America available in the blogosphere, and can only say that the Conquest has absolutely nothing to do with liberalism.

@ “Once upon a time, white liberalism was the problem…”

Greg, I find it fascinating what you say. It is true that we are generally ruled by Jews but the cowardice of regular whites to allow that situation in the first place makes me think that Pierce was right: coward whites (i.e., the common white) are destroying themselves.

There are two ways of looking at it. The scholarly way, say O’Meara’s essays on corporate capitalism as the basic etiology of Western malaise, or the plain dictum by Rockwell, later picked up by Covington in his weekly podcasts: “A conservatism is someone worried about his money; a white nationalist is concerned about his race”.

Most whites are merely concerned about their money. And to boot they subscribe liberalism also in the other sense, altruism. Recently I read the scholarly Esau’s Tears, an analysis of how modern anti-Semitism arose in the 19th century. The impression I got is that most of the so-called anti-Semite whites were mainly concerned about the altruistic Christian ethics in their (rather timid) fight against the Jews (that’s why I admire National Socialism: it managed to break away from Christian ethics).

I am writing this comment because the issue of the basic etiology of our current malaise has not stopped to worry me since my awakening last year. Recently at Age of Treason both Captainchaos (here) and Pat Hannagan (here) respectfully took issue with Tanstaafl about the JQ. For my good friend Tan it is homicide. But sometimes, when confronted with the most shameful cases of white cowardice, Captain and Pat would argue that it looks like suicide. Captain for instance was angry because Dennis Mangan forbids important comments in his blog that go beyond his reactionary conservatism (see e.g., my own comment here). Captain blames such cowards and Hannagan blames the middle class of whites for letting this happen. He agrees with the late Pierce in that they fully “deserve what’s coming to them”.

Are we doing it to ourselves (suicide) or are Jews behind it (homicide)? I agonize to answer this question but, again, I’ve just a year of studying the subject and there are big gaps in my education. For instance, you mention that we “slaughtered one another to free” the negroes. Together with the First World War, the Civil War is a big puzzle for me. I find it unbelievable that whites spilled their precious blood—to save the blood of an inferior ethnic group (any book recommendations on this paradox)?? This was the second suicidal blunder of the West (the first was to allow the emancipation of the Jews after the French Revolution).

This “slaughter one another to free the negroes” suggest to me that liberalism, in the sense of the latest stage of Christianity, is the basic etiology of what it is happening today. To use the metaphor of a counter-jihadist, “We are witnessing the historical demise of Christianity. When a star dies, in its last phase it expands into a red giant, before it shrinks into a white dwarf. Liberalism is the red giant of Christianity. And just as a red giant it is devoid of its core, it expands thousandfold while losing its substance and is about to die”. That guy says that the meta-ethics of whites in Christendom has been transformed into the deranged altruism of today (i.e., into liberalism, as defined by you and Brett below).

Could the counter-jihadist be wrong and Tanstaafl right? Or could I be wrong (who like O’Meara believe that the One Ring is the real culprit) and you right? But perhaps nobody can answer this question…

Chechar, the ‘suicide’ vs ‘homicide’ debate was covered last year by Dr. Kevin MacDonald at his O.O. website. He wrote an article about a book by a Jewish author named Kaufman, called: The Decline and Fall of Anglo America. Kaufman naturally skirted the JQ and their influence in the national debacle. The general consensus of Kmac and most of the blog commentators was that the cause of the ongoing White racial disaster was both innate and alien instigated, with the emphasis on Jewish induced homicide/genocide. This is a subject that I think is vital, because of the White tendency to race denial, fantasy and self-delusion.

At a minimum, the antecedents of national and racial degeneration hark back to spiritually corrupting Puritan influences, and the altruistically flawed White-Anglo psyche itself. I believe that we have brought our collective racial suicide upon ourselves, because of our innate mental foibles, and our profound ignorance about critical matters. We have intellectually poisoned ourselves for centuries with very foolish thinking, and we can’t see it, or refuse to see it because of our willful ignorance. As a blindsided people, we have ideologically dug our own racial graves, and the deceitful Jews are sadistically pushing us into them.

Thus, the racial demise of the West is indeed twofold: we are caught up in a racial death-wish miasma of our own making, and the Jews are vigorously compounding it. That is the tragic dilemma that we face.

The Anglo mindset needs cleansed, and deprogrammed, in the worst way. Then, an ideological revolution in thought is needed in order to clear the way to ethnic regeneration, and guarantee the survival of Western Civilization. Considering current Jewish media control, negating this subversive and deadly influence will be one of our most difficult tasks. Furthermore, what is the key to changing the Anglo-White mindset, currently in lock-down? How do you save a hedonistic, mentally toxified people from themselves? Dr. Pierce toiled with this difficult riddle. Perhaps a visionary like ‘Trainspotter’, or another incisive thinker will unlock this conundrum and provide the key. If we can’t find a way to detoxify the White Western mind, we will become the extinct Tocharians of the 21st Century.